Legal Opinion · Dissent

Home Savings & Loan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided August 6, 1991No. 890101-CAPublished

1DissentBench, Presiding Judge

The majority holds that there is a distinction between the phrase “discovery of loss” as it is used to determine coverage and “discovery of loss” as it used to trigger notice requirements. The majority thereby adopts a minority, if not a totally novel, interpretation of discovery bonds and demands a significant departure from current industry practices. I believe that, under the terms of the bond, Aetna is not liable to Home for any loss resulting from the dishonesty of Glad or the Armitage lawsuit. Any coverage for the loss arising from the Armitage lawsuit must be found under the F & D…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. American Surety Company v. PaulySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. Phil Schroeder, Inc. v. Royal Globe InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Buehner Block Co. v. UWC ASSOCIATESUtah Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Farmers Insurance Exchange v. CallUtah Supreme Court · 1985
  5. LDS Hospital, a Division of Intermountain Health Care, Inc. v. Capitol Life Insurance Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1988

45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API